XR Disruptive Action or Not?

Obviously the global problem needs a global solution. That requires diplomacy but even more so, it requires political will. China would actually be one of the first to climb on board as they are taking climate change seriously: many would say not seriously enough. XR's first demand is to Tell The Truth. This is because the Big Oil camp are still peddling lies and distractions. The various COPs trying to implement the Paris Agreement are battles between climate activists and Big Oil lobbyists. They should be following the science, but that gets obscured. The current agreement is that each country will do what they can to achieve Net Zero emissions by whatever date they choose. The current plan is not working: it never would. Even if achieved, Net Zero leaves temperatures elevated and ice melting, so we need the target to be Net Negative.

Then comes the other bit of truth that is hidden. Natural Sequestration removed a lot of CO2, slightly more than half of what we emit. So Net Negative is achievable by reducing emissions to somewhat more than half. I say 75% others say 80%. Obviously not immediately but in a steady managed way.

Then the scheme that worked before needs to be copied. CFC production was phased out to save the ozone layer. Similarly fossil fuel production needs to be phased down to sustainable levels. When done globally country won't be pitted against country in keeping fossil fuels going.

All this needs political commitment, which needs minds to be changed. Disruptive protests do at least stop people ignoring the issue and pretending that everything that needs to be done is being done. It isn't.

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report

 The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report is due to be issued tomorrow. 

I predict that it will not say the following headline truths that desperately need to be understood.

1) Neither Net Zero Carbon nor the tougher Carbon Neutrality will stop the ice melting. If achieved they will leave any Carbon Dioxide we have added to the atmosphere up there. So average temperatures will stay at the elevated level that is melting Greenland and Antarctica. So we need to achieve Net Negative Carbon aka Carbon Negativity in order to reduce Carbon Dioxide level back to near normal.

2) Trying to control emissions isn't working and is highly unlikely to ever work, because it is the wrong end of the supply chain. We should be concentrating on controlling, rationing carbon extraction: limiting the global total of carbon extracted and burned. This ration needs to be steadily reduced down to sustainable levels.

3) Because currently the oceans and land naturally sequester about half the Carbon Dioxide we emit, the sustainable level of globally extracted carbon is not zero, but about a quarter of current levels. This is a level that fossil fuel and Big Oil should be able to live with. They might even increase profits because supply and demand will increase prices.

Martin Corney

 Methane leaks are easy to fix, and would make more money

Both the EDF and Ember, a UK-based energy thinktank, said there was no justification for fossil fuel companies being allowed to use carbon offsets as an alternative to cut methane emissions directly. This was partly because it was affordable to act onsite and partly because methane could not be minimised using offset projects that were meant to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, a different gas.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/27/methane-emissions-incredibly-cheap-to-cut-without-needing-offsets-safeguard-mechanism-inquiry-told

After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible

 After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible if both sides compromise, by following the science and logic. Both sides; the fossil fuel industry and climate activists believe they are fighting for survival, with their backs against the wall. Fossil fuel send in their lobbyists to get the politicians and decision makers on side, while climate activists send in their protesters to use ever more extreme measures to get them to do what they want. Both sides see this as a zero sum game. One side wins and the other side loses – complete victory or annihilation. But a win-win compromise is possible, if we follow the science. If we don’t, then if fossil fuels win, that is certain annihilation for at least half the planet’s population, but if climate activists stopped fossil fuels completely, the result might not be very different.

We needs a fresh perspective, using established ideas in a new configuration, to create a plan that puts climate change back in Pandora’s Box.

To reduce extreme climate events we need a plan that doesn’t just halt global overheating, but cools things back down to safe levels.

The plan must also be acceptable to many different parties, all with very different demands, so compromise will be necessary.

The plan must be rigid enough to be certain to work, while being flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.

I believe that a global cap and trade market for the extraction of carbon by fossil fuel and similar organisations is the key to the solution. Cap and trade is already in use for carbon emissions, but only in limited circumstances. Capping carbon extraction with a global quota would be comprehensive and efficient. This is why the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty has received so much support from organisations like the World Health Organisation, the Vatican, and the European Parliament – it addresses the supply of carbon in fossil fuels, not the consumption and consequent emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Note that it was phasing out the supply of CFCs that meant the Montreal Protocol worked to save the ozone layer. It was not persuading consumers to stop buying aerosol cans with CFCs in that solved that atmospheric problem. Limiting the supply is far more efficient and certain than trying to limit the demand.

What about Big Oil? This is where we have to start compromising. We now know that Big Oil has been using its massive wealth to spread denial, delay and distraction about climate change so they can carry on business as usual. They still have massive lobbying power, which can scupper any plan that looks like driving them out of business. To them it’s a matter of survival – an existential threat. Luckily the plan allows them to survive, but with reduced volumes. This is where Big Oil needs to compromise, but increased prices for a smaller supply might even increase their profits. The science as to why fossil fuels in smaller volumes can still be extracted and burned is that CO₂ is sequestered naturally in large quantities, mostly in the oceans. If levels of fossil fuel extraction are reduced to well below where their CO₂ emissions balance natural sequestration, (Net Zero Carbon), then more CO₂ will be drawn out of the atmosphere than is added to it, and we start to reduce atmospheric CO₂ and consequently start to cool the planet. According to the scientists at Climate Interactive, fossil fuel extraction needs to reduce to about 20% of current levels. This reduction would happen gradually but inexorably, so that markets can adjust to replace the lost energy with renewables and efficiency savings. The reduced quotas would be totally predictable for decades ahead, and so can be planned for by any competent government.

What about helping the developing nations which are disproportionately impacted by extreme climate events? They arguably need to be compensated for the damage, partially caused by heavily industrialised nations emitting most of the CO₂. It’s debatable who is most responsible, after all, there is hardly anyone on the planet who isn’t at least indirectly responsible for CO₂ emissions. Also, because of that natural sequestration mentioned earlier, hardly any really old CO₂ emissions are left in the atmosphere. So let’s take a different approach that avoids the blame game. Let’s use the cap and trade market this plan is built on to move wealth around. That global carbon extraction quota that will be traded has value. Every barrel of oil that is extracted from the ground will need the extracting organisation to have purchased matching quota from the market. What if that quota starts as the common right of every person on the planet? Selling that quota to the market will spread wealth to developing nations, which will create a more stable world. It might be necessary to allocate the quota to countries, based on their population size, rather than giving it directly to individuals. Although, especially in the developing world, phone based financial transactions are very common.

This plan has several advantages over the Paris Agreement and the various COP arrangements. Because it is global plan it is not dependent on how efficiently each nation performs, although each nation would have to audit the organisations extracting carbon in their boundaries. The global carbon extraction quota can be extended to cover forestry and other sources of carbon. In fact it would need to, since otherwise carbon sources such as peat present too tempting a target.

What if nations refused to join or left this market? Sanction for those who don’t join would have to be extensive, and to make it more difficult to leave, the market should be organised like a trade treaty, with independent courts having jurisdiction higher than national courts. This already happens under treaties such as in EFTA or CPTPP.

Offsets are a bit of a problem. Carbon quota offsets probably need to be divided into permanent and temporary CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).

This plan for a global carbon extraction quota market would replace nearly all other CO₂ emissions reduction measures, since few other measures are necessary. Cement production is the biggest other source of CO₂ emissions. This could of course be included by treating the carbon in the CO₂ emissions as needing quota.

What about other greenhouse gases? CO₂ is the main problem, overshadowing all other greenhouse gases, both in terms or radiative forcing and rate of growth. So controlling CO₂ in the carbon cycle is the key objective. This might change if too many feedback tipping points kick in. As global temperatures increase, we dance closer and closer to the tipping point cliff. This cliff is more like a series of crumbling ledges than an abrupt edge. If too many ledges crumble, all bets are off. So the sooner we retreat from the cliff edge, by cooling the planet, the better.

At current EU carbon quota prices of about €50 per tonne, this carbon market would be worth about half a trillion dollars each year, or over $60 per person. This would put about $5 on to the price of a barrel of oil, so about 5%. A small price to pay to save the planet. This price will of course change over time as the carbon quota reduces but will depend on future demand for fossil carbon. Arguably, this control of supply is just a more extreme form of what OPEC does, to keep the price high by rationing supply.

The Net Zero Carbon Fraud

 

COP27 is starting - but if we stick with the Net Zero Carbon confidence trick I need never plant another tree to sequester carbon – because it’s pointless.

Net Zero is only the peak of the CO2 hill. The point where we have maximum CO2 in the atmosphere, and shortly after, reach maximum temperature increase – unless we are unlucky and feedbacks take over. But what are the plans beyond Net Zero. COP26 etc don't go any further. In which case we keep the temperature increase reached at the top of the hill. There are no plans to remove extra carbon. In fact, if you read the text carefully, you see that fossil fuels keep on being produced and burnt at a rate that balances natural sequestration - plus all other sequestration efforts such as regenerative agriculture, tree planting etc. All that carbon capture effort just adds to the amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt - up to the balance of Net Zero. So in the end, the only gain is that we don't go beyond whatever high temperature increase is reached. And we just have to hope that feedbacks don't take off uncontrollably. What we should be demanding is that we come back down the other side of the hill and reduce atmospheric CO2 back to normal, along with reducing temperatures and extreme climate events. We need Net Negative Carbon, and I have a plan to do it.

So this is what the Paris Agreement is trying to achieve.

While China will only agree to this.

And what we should be demanding is this.

Only with this, or something similar, can we start to return temperatures to where they should be, and climate to what we need to prosper.

 

Khaos added to the Carbon Bathtub

 

Khaos added to the Carbon Bathtub

The CO₂ bathtub analogy illustrates how understanding flows is vital to understand how global overheating works, and how to counter it. Imagine this bathtub holding all the excess CO₂ in the atmosphere. A tap representing our CO₂ emissions is adding CO₂ to the bath faster than the plughole is letting CO₂ out by natural sequestration. So the level of CO₂ in the bathtub is steadily rising. To complete the analogy, the goddess Khaos (Chaos) is taking a bath and splashing around. The fuller the bath gets, the more she splashes. But what gets splashed, are extreme weather events; hurricanes, floods and droughts. The fuller the bathtub gets, the more likely the splashes are to get over the rim of the bath. I think that adding Khaos to the analogy sorts out the limitation of the bathtub appearing to reach a single level where it overflows. That level might be the point where climate feedbacks kick in irreversibly.

If climate feedbacks do kick in irreversibly, then all bets are off and nothing can be done to avert catastrophe. For me it’s a matter of faith that we have not yet reached that point, and that global overheating can be reversed (see my blog page). No scientist can prove that we have reached the point of irreversible climate feedbacks until we are well past that point. This is because of Chaos Theory and the associated uncertainty.

Big Oil Thrives – So Does the Planet

There is a possible Climate Change compromise where Big Oil can still do business, and the climate returns to something like normal. I used to think that Big Oil had to be closed down. Science learns from its mistakes. I made a mistake and have learned.

My initial climate model assumed that carbon emissions had to fall to zero in order to stop global overheating and catastrophic climate change. This would mean that fossil fuel companies would be put out of business. No wonder they were fighting back with every dirty trick in the book. But I was wrong. I had overlooked the natural sequestration of carbon on land and more importantly by the oceans.

This was an easy mistake to make, and I’ve seen a number of scientific papers that make the same mistake. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a persistent gas with no natural processes that act to change it into something else. Other gases like methane react in the atmosphere to turn into other gases and so have a half-life, of about a decade for methane. Carbon dioxide stays there forever- except it doesn’t. That was the mistake.

When plants grow they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is also absorbed by water. Rain water is actually weak carboxylic acid because the water has absorbed carbon dioxide. This is why it eats caves into limestone. The oceans also absorb carbon dioxide. This is natural carbon sequestration, but how big is the effect?

Two Percent Saves the Day

Historically, before the industrial revolution pumped all this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is generally accepted that the level of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. This was for a normal, stable, balanced carbon cycle. It is now well over 410 ppm. I made a guess that the further out of balance, the further away from normal, the larger the quantity of carbon dioxide and carbon naturally sequestered. When I crunched the numbers this graph seemed to confirm my guess.

Since around 1950 it looks like somewhere between 1.5% and 2% of excess carbon dioxide is naturally sequestered.

The consequences of this are that where our carbon dioxide emissions should be increasing ppm by about 4 every year, the measured amount is only increasing by about 2 ppm.

This why the world can reduce carbon dioxide levels, and global overheating, by reducing carbon emissions to only something like 20% to 25% of current levels and not to zero.

The following graph illustrates this, and forms the core of my plan to reverse global overheating and climate chaos.

So the demand from climate activists needs to be that carbon emissions globally, are reduced to sustainable levels as quickly as possible.

My preferred method to achieve this is with a Global Carbon Extraction Quota, as detailed in my plan.